51–58 of 58 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one is talking about it because you can't prevent infections from spreading in crowded environments.
So there is no advantage at all having some filter on top of the train, pushing the air from top or bottom to the other direction? I would assume that those droplet infections should become less.
nearly all passenger trains are gadgetbahns, automobiles are much easier to scale and likely more environmentally friendly when occupancies on the train are low
Automobiles are easier to scale until you hit a brick wall. Subways and trains can transport a lot more people than roads. A subway line with modern signalling can have a train every 45 seconds or so. It's impossible to match that with normal roads. Dense cities can't function without trains. Imagine London, Tokyo, or New York without the subway.
2. Everywhere else, even in dense cities, cars are very good at delivering people from where they are to where they want to go, without a large investment in single-purpose facilities like passenger railroads.
Especially in the US, it makes almost no sense to send passengers on rail when it would be more time efficient to fly between dense areas, and use the railroads for transporting freight - a task where they excel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So there is no advantage at all having some filter on top of the train, pushing the air from top or bottom to the other direction? I would assume that those droplet infections should become less.
Sick people touch surfaces, you touch surfaces. Then you touch your face.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A train ride cannot be more expencive than the car, then the car will be used.
In the U.K. it often is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Automobiles are easier to scale until you hit a brick wall. Subways and trains can transport a lot more people than roads. A subway line with modern signalling can have a train every 45 seconds or so. It's impossible to match that with normal roads. Dense cities can't function without trains. Imagine London, Tokyo, or New York without the subway.
1. Yes trains in very dense areas or connecting dense areas make sense - that's why my comment says "nearly all" trains 2. Everywhere else, even in dense cities, cars are very good at delivering people from where they are to where they want to go, without a large investment in single-purpose facilities like passenger railroads. Especially in the US, it makes almost no sense to send passengers on rail when it would be…
To be a little contrarian: what would New York City look like today if they had dismissed the Subway as a "gadgetbahn" back in 1894?
Of course, it happens that new technology makes older concepts suddenly viable. But in public transport, the cost of the track is one of the major factors. The high cost for Maglev tracks killed the technology (yes, it may work in Japan where the geography leads to lines with insane capacity demands). Hyperloop will suffer from the same problem.
The New York subway started with a revolutionary pneumatic railway and some other lines using standard gauge railway tracks. The pneumatic railway was quickly abandoned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Yes trains in very dense areas or connecting dense areas make sense - that's why my comment says "nearly all" trains 2. Everywhere else, even in dense cities, cars are very good at delivering people from where they are to where they want to go, without a large investment in single-purpose facilities like passenger railroads. Especially in the US, it makes almost no sense to send passengers on rail when it would be…
I'd argue that in dense cities cars are about the worst mode of transport for able-bodied people. For almost all trips a combination of a bicycle and a train is faster. Cars are expensive. Cars pollute. Car infrastructure, especially parking, consumes valuable living space. Cars cause deadly accidents.